1 00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:04,400 Speaker 1: Is President Donald Trump already violating the Constitution. That's the 2 00:00:04,480 --> 00:00:07,520 Speaker 1: contention of a new lawsuit filed by a government watchdog 3 00:00:07,560 --> 00:00:10,360 Speaker 1: group today. It's represented by some of the biggest names 4 00:00:10,360 --> 00:00:14,000 Speaker 1: in constitutional law. The claim is that Trump's continuing stake 5 00:00:14,040 --> 00:00:17,040 Speaker 1: in his business puts him in violation of the Constitution's 6 00:00:17,040 --> 00:00:20,680 Speaker 1: emoluments clause, which bars government officials from accepting things of 7 00:00:20,800 --> 00:00:24,880 Speaker 1: value from foreign governments. The group, known as Citizens for 8 00:00:24,960 --> 00:00:28,560 Speaker 1: Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, points the money paid to 9 00:00:28,560 --> 00:00:31,720 Speaker 1: Trump's hotels and golf courses, payments on leases held at 10 00:00:31,760 --> 00:00:35,720 Speaker 1: Trump Tower, and the deals that confer rights overseas Trump's 11 00:00:35,760 --> 00:00:38,560 Speaker 1: show The Apprentice. The group is asking a federal judge 12 00:00:38,560 --> 00:00:41,520 Speaker 1: in Manhattan to bar Trump from accepting payments from foreign 13 00:00:41,600 --> 00:00:45,879 Speaker 1: governments and government owned entities. Moments ago, Trump told reporters 14 00:00:45,920 --> 00:00:49,360 Speaker 1: the lawsuit was quote totally without merit. He has taken 15 00:00:49,360 --> 00:00:52,720 Speaker 1: the position that under the law, presidents cannot have a 16 00:00:52,800 --> 00:00:56,440 Speaker 1: conflict of interest. Does the lawsuit lawsuits stand a chance? 17 00:00:56,560 --> 00:00:59,400 Speaker 1: And what would the implications be if it does. Our 18 00:00:59,440 --> 00:01:02,639 Speaker 1: guests to talk about the new lawsuits new lawsuit are 19 00:01:02,800 --> 00:01:06,480 Speaker 1: Caroline Frederickson, president of the American Constitution Society, which has 20 00:01:06,520 --> 00:01:09,720 Speaker 1: been rather critical of the new president and Jonathan Adler, 21 00:01:09,800 --> 00:01:15,680 Speaker 1: a law professor at Case Western University, Welcome to you both. Caroline. 22 00:01:15,760 --> 00:01:19,520 Speaker 1: Let's start with you make make the case for this 23 00:01:19,520 --> 00:01:22,040 Speaker 1: this lawsuit. What's the argument that says that Trump is 24 00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:26,160 Speaker 1: violating the molument? I mean, first of all, UH, he's 25 00:01:26,240 --> 00:01:29,800 Speaker 1: conflating several things when he says the president uh has 26 00:01:29,840 --> 00:01:32,479 Speaker 1: no no conflict of interest. UM. You know, there are 27 00:01:32,760 --> 00:01:37,880 Speaker 1: many statutes uh, and lots of custom about how presidents 28 00:01:37,920 --> 00:01:40,600 Speaker 1: are supposed to behave to make the American people believe 29 00:01:40,680 --> 00:01:46,160 Speaker 1: that they have our nation's interests first, not their own pocketbook. UM. 30 00:01:46,200 --> 00:01:48,880 Speaker 1: But this is the constitution, um. And we we're talking 31 00:01:48,880 --> 00:01:54,960 Speaker 1: about is the Emoluments Clause UM, which was adopted by 32 00:01:55,000 --> 00:01:58,320 Speaker 1: the Framers because of great concern about foreign governments being 33 00:01:58,320 --> 00:02:02,240 Speaker 1: able to influence those to run our country and by definition, 34 00:02:02,640 --> 00:02:07,360 Speaker 1: to influence the president. UM. It's it's very squarely on point. 35 00:02:07,520 --> 00:02:10,680 Speaker 1: It says that no person holding any office of profit 36 00:02:10,800 --> 00:02:16,960 Speaker 1: or trust shall, without the consent of Congress, except any president, emolument, office, 37 00:02:17,040 --> 00:02:20,520 Speaker 1: or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, 38 00:02:20,639 --> 00:02:24,200 Speaker 1: or foreign state. So you know, I think, um, you know, 39 00:02:24,280 --> 00:02:27,760 Speaker 1: it's clear that the president is covered by the emoluments clause. UM, 40 00:02:27,800 --> 00:02:30,360 Speaker 1: And I think, um, the advocates who brought this suit 41 00:02:30,400 --> 00:02:34,040 Speaker 1: have a very very strong argument, UM that there is 42 00:02:34,040 --> 00:02:37,640 Speaker 1: a potential, certainly for a violation by the payments that 43 00:02:37,680 --> 00:02:42,720 Speaker 1: are made to the company. Jonathan Trump's attorneys at Morgan, 44 00:02:42,800 --> 00:02:47,239 Speaker 1: Lewis and Bucks has said, Jonathan, are you still there? 45 00:02:49,160 --> 00:02:51,600 Speaker 1: I think we've lost him, just for just for a 46 00:02:51,639 --> 00:02:55,200 Speaker 1: few moments. So Caroline Trump's attorneys have said that the 47 00:02:55,320 --> 00:02:59,920 Speaker 1: monuments clause doesn't apply to arms length transactions in which 48 00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:03,320 Speaker 1: the president's business is engaged, such as paying a hotel 49 00:03:03,440 --> 00:03:07,960 Speaker 1: room bill to a corporate entity. What your answer to that? Well, 50 00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:10,480 Speaker 1: you know, I honestly, how arms length is it to 51 00:03:10,520 --> 00:03:13,519 Speaker 1: have your children running your business? Um? And that's that's 52 00:03:13,560 --> 00:03:16,000 Speaker 1: not a very long arm for sure. UM. But in 53 00:03:16,040 --> 00:03:18,679 Speaker 1: any case, I think the issue is really about, um, 54 00:03:18,840 --> 00:03:21,080 Speaker 1: what impact it has on the president and how he 55 00:03:21,160 --> 00:03:25,119 Speaker 1: makes decisions. Uh. The the influence is what they are 56 00:03:25,160 --> 00:03:29,079 Speaker 1: going to be cultivating. Uh. The knowledge of their spending 57 00:03:29,080 --> 00:03:31,799 Speaker 1: will be easily conveyed to the President's clear that there 58 00:03:31,800 --> 00:03:34,280 Speaker 1: could be an influence. So you know, I don't know 59 00:03:34,280 --> 00:03:36,600 Speaker 1: what kind of arms length that is certainly not in 60 00:03:36,600 --> 00:03:40,920 Speaker 1: my mind. Well isn't though, If all a foreign government 61 00:03:40,960 --> 00:03:44,280 Speaker 1: is doing, or you know, foreign official is doing is 62 00:03:44,320 --> 00:03:49,160 Speaker 1: coming to, say the Trump International Hotel and paying you know, 63 00:03:49,240 --> 00:03:52,680 Speaker 1: whatever rate anybody else would pay there, I think that's 64 00:03:52,680 --> 00:03:55,680 Speaker 1: what they're talking about with an arms length transaction. Uh. 65 00:03:56,200 --> 00:04:00,000 Speaker 1: Why should that be something that potentially puts the president 66 00:04:00,000 --> 00:04:03,840 Speaker 1: in violation of the Constitution. Well, I'd say two things. 67 00:04:03,880 --> 00:04:08,560 Speaker 1: One is, um, we've heard a very um explicit um 68 00:04:09,360 --> 00:04:13,640 Speaker 1: decisions by foreign governments to direct their spending to the 69 00:04:13,680 --> 00:04:18,160 Speaker 1: Trump properties um and making it publicly known. Um. That's 70 00:04:18,279 --> 00:04:20,400 Speaker 1: very different from you know, I'm going to go have 71 00:04:20,560 --> 00:04:24,680 Speaker 1: lunch there once a month um. Uh. And so I 72 00:04:24,680 --> 00:04:26,400 Speaker 1: think that's something that has to be looked into. The 73 00:04:26,400 --> 00:04:30,640 Speaker 1: other pieces that what's very important about lawsuits is um 74 00:04:30,680 --> 00:04:32,640 Speaker 1: that they allow us to have a better understanding of 75 00:04:32,640 --> 00:04:35,719 Speaker 1: the facts. And through the discovery process. One of the 76 00:04:35,760 --> 00:04:39,240 Speaker 1: things that I know that the the those who are 77 00:04:39,320 --> 00:04:42,040 Speaker 1: involved with this lawsuit hope to get ahold of ore 78 00:04:42,080 --> 00:04:46,000 Speaker 1: the president's tax returns um. And in those tax returns, 79 00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:47,920 Speaker 1: we'd have a much better sense of how much money 80 00:04:47,960 --> 00:04:51,320 Speaker 1: he's really getting from these foreign governments. And I think 81 00:04:51,360 --> 00:04:54,320 Speaker 1: that's an important piece of this. I mean, we we 82 00:04:54,440 --> 00:04:57,120 Speaker 1: just don't know. I mean, right now, you know there 83 00:04:57,160 --> 00:04:59,680 Speaker 1: there's a possibility that there that that he's not getting 84 00:05:00,200 --> 00:05:03,720 Speaker 1: any payments from from foreign governments, but there is definitely 85 00:05:03,760 --> 00:05:07,400 Speaker 1: a possibility that he is. Jonathan Adler is back with us. 86 00:05:07,839 --> 00:05:12,320 Speaker 1: Jonathan is standing, which is the plaintiffs showing that they 87 00:05:12,320 --> 00:05:17,760 Speaker 1: would suffer direct injury a problem in this lawsuit. Well, 88 00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:20,320 Speaker 1: I think standing is a huge problem in this lawsuit. 89 00:05:20,440 --> 00:05:23,520 Speaker 1: As a general matter, UH, saying that you are really 90 00:05:23,520 --> 00:05:26,880 Speaker 1: concerned that the federal government or or an executive officer 91 00:05:26,960 --> 00:05:29,720 Speaker 1: is violating the law is not enough to invoke the 92 00:05:29,800 --> 00:05:33,279 Speaker 1: jurisdiction of federal courts. UH. And in this case, UM, 93 00:05:33,600 --> 00:05:35,640 Speaker 1: I don't believe that that the plaintiffs have been able 94 00:05:35,640 --> 00:05:41,000 Speaker 1: to identify anything that causes them UH legally cognizable injury, 95 00:05:41,440 --> 00:05:44,760 Speaker 1: let alone satisfies the other requirements of standing, that that 96 00:05:44,839 --> 00:05:48,680 Speaker 1: injury be traceable to the alleged legal violation, and that 97 00:05:49,200 --> 00:05:52,600 Speaker 1: or that a UH favorable judgment would address that injury. 98 00:05:53,200 --> 00:05:56,200 Speaker 1: I think I think it's it's in the very aggressive 99 00:05:56,240 --> 00:05:59,839 Speaker 1: argument upstanding that they're making, and I would not expect 100 00:05:59,839 --> 00:06:02,919 Speaker 1: it to google claw. Carolyn, What's what's your response to 101 00:06:02,960 --> 00:06:05,120 Speaker 1: that I find this is one of one of these 102 00:06:05,120 --> 00:06:08,320 Speaker 1: issues standing that UH. You know, during the Obama years, 103 00:06:08,360 --> 00:06:12,080 Speaker 1: it was the the Republican opponents of Obama who are 104 00:06:12,160 --> 00:06:14,760 Speaker 1: arguing for robust standing, and now the shoe seems to 105 00:06:14,800 --> 00:06:19,159 Speaker 1: be on the other foot. Uh. Well, you know, it 106 00:06:19,200 --> 00:06:21,600 Speaker 1: is an aggressive argument. I'd have to agree, but I 107 00:06:21,880 --> 00:06:25,360 Speaker 1: think it has UM some merit. There. There's a nine 108 00:06:25,839 --> 00:06:30,160 Speaker 1: two Supreme Court decision in which a group that UH 109 00:06:30,640 --> 00:06:33,479 Speaker 1: was arguing for fair housing UM was able to get 110 00:06:33,560 --> 00:06:37,640 Speaker 1: standing because it UH it showed that its use of 111 00:06:37,680 --> 00:06:40,360 Speaker 1: testers to find out employment discrip whether there was a 112 00:06:40,640 --> 00:06:46,320 Speaker 1: housing discrimination UH was cognizable UM. And so the argument 113 00:06:46,360 --> 00:06:49,400 Speaker 1: here is that is that crew, the Citizens for Responsive 114 00:06:49,520 --> 00:06:52,920 Speaker 1: Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which is the plaintiff UM, 115 00:06:53,040 --> 00:06:57,760 Speaker 1: is diverting its resources to UMH the work that UH 116 00:06:57,760 --> 00:07:01,520 Speaker 1: it has to do on government transparency UH and UM. 117 00:07:01,600 --> 00:07:04,360 Speaker 1: So you know, it's certainly there's a parallel UM. I. 118 00:07:04,560 --> 00:07:06,960 Speaker 1: I you know, I think there's it's it's one of 119 00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:10,080 Speaker 1: the issues that is going to be most litigated in 120 00:07:10,080 --> 00:07:12,200 Speaker 1: this case, no doubt. UM. But I think if they've 121 00:07:12,240 --> 00:07:14,720 Speaker 1: got a claim, a colorable claim, and it's we'll see 122 00:07:14,720 --> 00:07:16,640 Speaker 1: how the courts take it. We're talking about the new 123 00:07:16,720 --> 00:07:20,200 Speaker 1: lawsuits that accuses Donald Trump of violating the Constitution through 124 00:07:20,240 --> 00:07:23,600 Speaker 1: his business dealings with foreign governments. Our guests are Caroline 125 00:07:23,640 --> 00:07:28,440 Speaker 1: Frederickson of the American Constitution Society and Jonathan Adler, professor 126 00:07:28,480 --> 00:07:32,320 Speaker 1: at Case Western. Uh. Jonathan, Uh, I think this might 127 00:07:32,360 --> 00:07:35,960 Speaker 1: have been when you were temporarily off, but Caroline was 128 00:07:36,120 --> 00:07:38,920 Speaker 1: was making the case for this lawsuit. And basically the 129 00:07:39,000 --> 00:07:42,680 Speaker 1: argument is the emoluments Clause is written very broadly, and 130 00:07:42,760 --> 00:07:46,280 Speaker 1: these are situations where foreign governments might be able to 131 00:07:46,400 --> 00:07:49,720 Speaker 1: curry favor with the new president by staying at his 132 00:07:49,800 --> 00:07:53,720 Speaker 1: hotel or perhaps giving him a sweetheart deal on on 133 00:07:53,760 --> 00:07:56,840 Speaker 1: some sort of thing. If the plaintiffs could get over 134 00:07:56,880 --> 00:08:01,720 Speaker 1: the standing problem. Is there a subtive argument that the 135 00:08:01,720 --> 00:08:06,080 Speaker 1: president is in violation of the Constitution. There is an argument, 136 00:08:06,080 --> 00:08:09,680 Speaker 1: and I do think there is serious academic debate over 137 00:08:10,320 --> 00:08:13,120 Speaker 1: whether the president is properly covered by the clause, and 138 00:08:13,120 --> 00:08:16,920 Speaker 1: and there is certainly academic debate about how we identify 139 00:08:17,040 --> 00:08:21,680 Speaker 1: the difference between money obtained in a on length transaction 140 00:08:22,240 --> 00:08:25,440 Speaker 1: and what is actually an emolument or an improper inducement. 141 00:08:26,240 --> 00:08:28,720 Speaker 1: But the larger question is really whether or not this 142 00:08:28,760 --> 00:08:31,400 Speaker 1: is the sort of thing that should be handled in 143 00:08:31,400 --> 00:08:35,559 Speaker 1: the federal courts. The emoluments cause itself gives Congress the 144 00:08:35,600 --> 00:08:38,319 Speaker 1: authority to decide what the line is between the permissible 145 00:08:38,520 --> 00:08:43,360 Speaker 1: and impermissible emolument. Uh. The impeachment clause specifically identifies bribery 146 00:08:43,800 --> 00:08:46,480 Speaker 1: has a potential grounds for impeachment. So I think the 147 00:08:46,559 --> 00:08:48,960 Speaker 1: larger question is whether or not this is the sort 148 00:08:48,960 --> 00:08:51,280 Speaker 1: of thing that the political process to deal with or 149 00:08:51,320 --> 00:08:53,680 Speaker 1: the sort of thing that should be left in the 150 00:08:53,760 --> 00:08:55,920 Speaker 1: hands of, you know, a single federal judge in a 151 00:08:55,960 --> 00:09:00,680 Speaker 1: single court case. Caroline. This disorganization all so filed a 152 00:09:00,760 --> 00:09:05,320 Speaker 1: separate complaint on Friday with the General Services Administration over 153 00:09:05,400 --> 00:09:08,959 Speaker 1: provision in the Trump organization's lease of the old Post 154 00:09:09,080 --> 00:09:13,440 Speaker 1: Office building for the Trump Hotel. That provision prohibits any 155 00:09:13,480 --> 00:09:16,760 Speaker 1: elected official of the United States government from being part 156 00:09:16,800 --> 00:09:20,800 Speaker 1: of the lease or deriving any benefit from it. Does 157 00:09:20,840 --> 00:09:25,240 Speaker 1: that sound like a clearer claim? Well, it also sounds 158 00:09:25,280 --> 00:09:28,360 Speaker 1: like a clear claim. Um. I mean, I guess I 159 00:09:28,640 --> 00:09:31,720 Speaker 1: think the Constitution and just to respond to Professor Adler, 160 00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:35,319 Speaker 1: you know, specifically frame to ensure that when the political 161 00:09:35,320 --> 00:09:38,720 Speaker 1: branches are pailing, that the judiciary can can have a 162 00:09:38,800 --> 00:09:42,160 Speaker 1: role so that um, and this Congress is not necessarily 163 00:09:42,160 --> 00:09:44,840 Speaker 1: one that is going to see fit uh. It's certainly 164 00:09:44,840 --> 00:09:48,280 Speaker 1: not now to explore a violation of the Monuments clause. UM. 165 00:09:49,200 --> 00:09:51,199 Speaker 1: But I do think that the the issue is very 166 00:09:51,240 --> 00:09:56,240 Speaker 1: clear in the lease UM that it forbids uh uh 167 00:09:56,840 --> 00:10:00,520 Speaker 1: an official of the government to umu to the same 168 00:10:01,040 --> 00:10:03,280 Speaker 1: to have that kind of relationship with the g s 169 00:10:03,320 --> 00:10:06,000 Speaker 1: A UM. So it'll be interesting to see how that 170 00:10:06,080 --> 00:10:13,120 Speaker 1: case proceeds as well. UM. But it certainly seems rather straightforward. Jonathan. 171 00:10:13,320 --> 00:10:16,200 Speaker 1: Let's let's play this out just a little bit. UM. 172 00:10:16,520 --> 00:10:20,320 Speaker 1: If a court were to find that the president is 173 00:10:20,320 --> 00:10:24,880 Speaker 1: in violation of the Monuments clause, Uh, what would happen there? 174 00:10:24,920 --> 00:10:27,880 Speaker 1: So you have a court that orders him to what 175 00:10:28,120 --> 00:10:33,960 Speaker 1: divest himself of these assets? Um? Do we think that 176 00:10:33,960 --> 00:10:37,240 Speaker 1: that this president is actually gonna gonna agree to do that? 177 00:10:37,600 --> 00:10:40,679 Speaker 1: Is this? You know? So we're concerned that this is 178 00:10:40,760 --> 00:10:45,080 Speaker 1: getting getting us into a real constitutionally messy area. Well, 179 00:10:45,120 --> 00:10:47,680 Speaker 1: that that really highlights the problem and the idea that 180 00:10:47,760 --> 00:10:52,280 Speaker 1: a federal court would be entrusted with overseeing the financial 181 00:10:52,320 --> 00:10:56,120 Speaker 1: relationships of the president and deciding what is or is 182 00:10:56,200 --> 00:11:00,480 Speaker 1: not an acceptable relationship when the Constitution expressively give Congress 183 00:11:00,480 --> 00:11:04,120 Speaker 1: that authority would create a separation of powers nightmare. And 184 00:11:04,160 --> 00:11:07,600 Speaker 1: it's well established in the Supreme Court jurisprudence that in 185 00:11:07,679 --> 00:11:12,200 Speaker 1: these sorts of intra branch UH controversies and conflicts, particularly 186 00:11:12,200 --> 00:11:15,920 Speaker 1: those that are designed to prevent protect can things like corruption, 187 00:11:16,360 --> 00:11:18,360 Speaker 1: that it's not clear the courts have a role. So 188 00:11:18,400 --> 00:11:21,640 Speaker 1: in cases like Nixon versus United States, Extreme Court said 189 00:11:21,960 --> 00:11:26,160 Speaker 1: the courts have no ability to even ask whether UH 190 00:11:26,200 --> 00:11:30,079 Speaker 1: Congress followed proper procedures when impeaching a judge, that it's 191 00:11:30,120 --> 00:11:32,120 Speaker 1: not a question of what Congress got a close and 192 00:11:32,160 --> 00:11:35,000 Speaker 1: off its courts have no jurisdiction to address the question, 193 00:11:35,040 --> 00:11:38,160 Speaker 1: and that when we play out what would be involved 194 00:11:38,440 --> 00:11:41,839 Speaker 1: if the crew were successful in the suit, we see 195 00:11:41,880 --> 00:11:44,719 Speaker 1: why this is really not the sort of thing that's 196 00:11:44,920 --> 00:11:47,000 Speaker 1: best handles in courts. And I say that as someone 197 00:11:47,280 --> 00:11:51,000 Speaker 1: who agrees that there are serious questions about the president's 198 00:11:51,000 --> 00:11:53,840 Speaker 1: potential conflicts of interest and who would like to see 199 00:11:54,200 --> 00:11:57,640 Speaker 1: a group more actions to to assure all of us 200 00:11:57,679 --> 00:12:00,880 Speaker 1: that proper financial separation has been made, I just really 201 00:12:00,880 --> 00:12:05,720 Speaker 1: don't believe that that litigation is the way we accomplish that, Caroline, 202 00:12:05,760 --> 00:12:08,880 Speaker 1: what's your response to that? Well, I mean, I think 203 00:12:08,880 --> 00:12:12,640 Speaker 1: the constitution um makes it clear, Um, Congress can certainly 204 00:12:12,679 --> 00:12:17,240 Speaker 1: consent to allow uh the president to get gifts from 205 00:12:17,240 --> 00:12:19,840 Speaker 1: foreign states. Um. It does. The clause does not, however, 206 00:12:19,960 --> 00:12:23,800 Speaker 1: say that Congress will adjudicate whether the emoluments Clause has 207 00:12:23,840 --> 00:12:26,079 Speaker 1: been violated or not. So I think it stands apart 208 00:12:26,120 --> 00:12:30,120 Speaker 1: from impeachment, which has that particular process laid out. Um. 209 00:12:30,120 --> 00:12:33,160 Speaker 1: And when we are in a situation where the government, um, 210 00:12:33,200 --> 00:12:37,079 Speaker 1: you know is in essence a one party state, uh, 211 00:12:37,200 --> 00:12:38,960 Speaker 1: you know, we are we left to say that any 212 00:12:38,960 --> 00:12:45,800 Speaker 1: ethics violation, any constitutionally uh sufficient ethical violations that the 213 00:12:46,080 --> 00:12:48,360 Speaker 1: president is going to engage in, we just have to 214 00:12:48,400 --> 00:12:50,640 Speaker 1: look the other way because nobody's going to be able 215 00:12:50,640 --> 00:12:53,440 Speaker 1: to to do anything about it. I can't imagine that 216 00:12:53,440 --> 00:12:56,800 Speaker 1: that's what our framers, um, we're thinking when they constructed 217 00:12:56,840 --> 00:12:59,520 Speaker 1: the emoluments clause, that there would be no uh, no 218 00:12:59,640 --> 00:13:03,480 Speaker 1: response possible. So I actually think this is uh, you know, 219 00:13:03,559 --> 00:13:07,040 Speaker 1: it's something that uh uh it's it's the role of 220 00:13:07,040 --> 00:13:10,320 Speaker 1: the judiciary specifically to enforce these types of provisions in 221 00:13:10,360 --> 00:13:15,320 Speaker 1: the Constitution. Jonathan, would uh the standing argument be a 222 00:13:15,520 --> 00:13:18,280 Speaker 1: stronger if, as I guess, the a c l U 223 00:13:18,400 --> 00:13:23,120 Speaker 1: is considering filing a suit on behalf of a competing hotel. 224 00:13:23,280 --> 00:13:28,000 Speaker 1: For example, somebody who says I got less business because uh, 225 00:13:28,440 --> 00:13:30,880 Speaker 1: people who might have stayed at my hotel instead go 226 00:13:31,400 --> 00:13:33,720 Speaker 1: to stay at the Trump hotel to curry favor with 227 00:13:33,800 --> 00:13:36,920 Speaker 1: the new president. Would that be an argument that would 228 00:13:36,920 --> 00:13:41,800 Speaker 1: get him over the standing hump. I still think that 229 00:13:41,800 --> 00:13:44,240 Speaker 1: that argument might have some problems, but I do think 230 00:13:44,240 --> 00:13:47,920 Speaker 1: it would be a significantly stronger argument for standing than 231 00:13:48,000 --> 00:13:51,280 Speaker 1: we see in this case. Of courts have recognized, at 232 00:13:51,320 --> 00:13:56,480 Speaker 1: least in certain circumstances, that competitors can have standing to 233 00:13:56,679 --> 00:14:02,240 Speaker 1: challenge governmental actions which unfairly benefit of competing terms. Caroline. 234 00:14:02,360 --> 00:14:06,160 Speaker 1: Is a problem here that there is very little law 235 00:14:06,520 --> 00:14:10,880 Speaker 1: as far as litigation on the emoluments clause. Hey, how well, 236 00:14:10,960 --> 00:14:14,600 Speaker 1: that's certainly to put it mildly. Um. Um, I think, 237 00:14:14,640 --> 00:14:16,760 Speaker 1: which is why the law professors love it. Um. In 238 00:14:16,800 --> 00:14:21,160 Speaker 1: many ways, this is such a great area for discussion. Um. 239 00:14:21,200 --> 00:14:24,120 Speaker 1: It's intriguing, it's interesting, um. But you know, really, what 240 00:14:24,200 --> 00:14:29,920 Speaker 1: it reflects is that the practice of our presidents till 241 00:14:29,960 --> 00:14:35,200 Speaker 1: now has been consistent that the expectation is so broadly 242 00:14:35,280 --> 00:14:38,960 Speaker 1: shared that the president must make it clear to the 243 00:14:39,000 --> 00:14:43,480 Speaker 1: American public that he holds our nation's interests ahead of 244 00:14:43,520 --> 00:14:47,360 Speaker 1: his own. It's the most portant, important part of his job, 245 00:14:47,640 --> 00:14:50,200 Speaker 1: that it is the duty that he holds um. And 246 00:14:50,240 --> 00:14:53,200 Speaker 1: I think we're seeing that shaken. We've never we've never 247 00:14:53,240 --> 00:14:56,400 Speaker 1: had to litigate this before, because presidents have made clear 248 00:14:56,520 --> 00:15:01,040 Speaker 1: that they are not interested in uh in in misleading 249 00:15:01,080 --> 00:15:04,960 Speaker 1: the American public. Uh and that we have standards for 250 00:15:05,040 --> 00:15:08,800 Speaker 1: ethical behavior that they have attempted to follow. I mean, 251 00:15:08,800 --> 00:15:12,080 Speaker 1: not always perfectly, perhaps, but um. I think we had 252 00:15:12,120 --> 00:15:16,120 Speaker 1: some very strong norms about what was acceptable, and President 253 00:15:16,120 --> 00:15:19,880 Speaker 1: Trump has violated every one of them. Jonathan, There this 254 00:15:19,920 --> 00:15:22,280 Speaker 1: issue did come up in a slightly different, well maybe 255 00:15:22,320 --> 00:15:25,120 Speaker 1: a very very different context at the beginning of the 256 00:15:25,120 --> 00:15:28,040 Speaker 1: Obama administration when he was going to be awarded the 257 00:15:28,080 --> 00:15:31,760 Speaker 1: Nobel Peace Prize and there was a Justice Department assessment 258 00:15:32,520 --> 00:15:35,080 Speaker 1: that that determined he would not be in violation of 259 00:15:35,120 --> 00:15:38,840 Speaker 1: the Monuments clause by accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Does 260 00:15:38,880 --> 00:15:41,680 Speaker 1: that affect the analysis here at all in your mind? 261 00:15:43,040 --> 00:15:44,960 Speaker 1: I don't know that particular one does. I mean, there 262 00:15:44,960 --> 00:15:48,920 Speaker 1: are there are examples going back through history where presidents 263 00:15:48,960 --> 00:15:51,520 Speaker 1: have sought legal opinions or whether or not they could 264 00:15:51,560 --> 00:15:54,800 Speaker 1: accept certain sorts of things, and a handful of cases 265 00:15:54,840 --> 00:16:01,880 Speaker 1: involving um questions about presidents uh own financial affairs, not 266 00:16:01,920 --> 00:16:04,520 Speaker 1: in not cases like Wittige Eaten Court, but but instances 267 00:16:04,560 --> 00:16:06,920 Speaker 1: in which was this was examined. But but Karen is 268 00:16:06,960 --> 00:16:09,520 Speaker 1: right that that we don't have a lot that's on point. 269 00:16:10,120 --> 00:16:13,240 Speaker 1: Not even the various Office of Legal Council memos that 270 00:16:13,320 --> 00:16:18,400 Speaker 1: address these questions, um are are rather thin on the 271 00:16:18,520 --> 00:16:22,080 Speaker 1: things that are directly relevant to this lawsuit. So we 272 00:16:22,120 --> 00:16:24,920 Speaker 1: don't have nearly as much established precedent in this area 273 00:16:24,960 --> 00:16:30,960 Speaker 1: as as we would like to have to bring some clarity, Caroline, 274 00:16:31,120 --> 00:16:34,880 Speaker 1: as far as the litigation itself would go, you have 275 00:16:35,000 --> 00:16:37,720 Speaker 1: to even no matter which way a federal judge ruled, 276 00:16:37,800 --> 00:16:40,360 Speaker 1: you have to believe that that's going to be appealed 277 00:16:40,760 --> 00:16:43,400 Speaker 1: and appealed as high as it can go. So we 278 00:16:43,560 --> 00:16:48,440 Speaker 1: take might take years for this to be decided potentially, um. 279 00:16:48,480 --> 00:16:50,800 Speaker 1: You know, hopefully I think the courts can recognize that 280 00:16:50,800 --> 00:16:56,200 Speaker 1: that an issue of this importance requires expedited, expedited process. 281 00:16:56,280 --> 00:17:00,520 Speaker 1: But you know, legal work is never speedy. Um uh 282 00:17:00,560 --> 00:17:03,600 Speaker 1: So I'm expecting it will take some time. But as 283 00:17:03,640 --> 00:17:05,679 Speaker 1: that goes on, uh, you know, if they make it 284 00:17:05,680 --> 00:17:08,000 Speaker 1: past the first hurdle and they get into discovery, they 285 00:17:08,040 --> 00:17:12,280 Speaker 1: will potentially be further information coming out that will strengthen 286 00:17:12,320 --> 00:17:15,479 Speaker 1: the case UM, and strengthen the case politically perhaps as 287 00:17:15,480 --> 00:17:21,240 Speaker 1: well as legally UM. And the tax returns, yes, indeed, 288 00:17:21,280 --> 00:17:24,280 Speaker 1: other types of information that comes out about payments that 289 00:17:24,400 --> 00:17:27,880 Speaker 1: may be being made UM. Because you know, I think 290 00:17:28,119 --> 00:17:32,000 Speaker 1: you know what ultimately, what everybody would want is an 291 00:17:32,240 --> 00:17:37,479 Speaker 1: administration a president who follows the rules as they've been 292 00:17:37,520 --> 00:17:39,840 Speaker 1: known till now. And if he if he decided to 293 00:17:39,880 --> 00:17:44,879 Speaker 1: actually divest from his company, if he actually set up 294 00:17:44,880 --> 00:17:48,320 Speaker 1: a process of screenings that was appropriate, if he actually 295 00:17:49,280 --> 00:17:53,119 Speaker 1: uh uh made it clear that his tax were for 296 00:17:53,640 --> 00:17:56,120 Speaker 1: tax tax returns would be available for people. I think 297 00:17:56,119 --> 00:17:58,440 Speaker 1: you know all this, you know, people would would would 298 00:17:58,480 --> 00:18:01,760 Speaker 1: be much more confident in the lawsuits would go away. 299 00:18:01,800 --> 00:18:06,160 Speaker 1: But until that happens, I think nobody can be confident that, UM, 300 00:18:06,200 --> 00:18:09,080 Speaker 1: we don't have a president who is in withdrawal of 301 00:18:09,200 --> 00:18:14,080 Speaker 1: foreign governments taking payments for for services and uh and 302 00:18:14,119 --> 00:18:16,680 Speaker 1: I think UM As a result, I think the courts 303 00:18:16,680 --> 00:18:19,600 Speaker 1: are going to certainly try and and and move as 304 00:18:19,640 --> 00:18:23,600 Speaker 1: an expedited a fashion as they can. Um that not 305 00:18:23,600 --> 00:18:26,320 Speaker 1: not necessarily speedy, though, as I said, because courts don't 306 00:18:26,560 --> 00:18:29,600 Speaker 1: work that way. We're talking about the new lawsuit file 307 00:18:29,680 --> 00:18:33,840 Speaker 1: today involving the Emolument's clause, accusing Donald Trump of violating 308 00:18:33,880 --> 00:18:37,760 Speaker 1: the Constitution by his business dealings with foreign governments.